DETAILED ACTION
Notice to Applicant
In the amendment dated 2026-07-20, the following has occurred: Claims 1, 2, 9, 11, 14, and 18 have been amended; Claims 7-8 have been canceled; Claims 19-20 have been added.
Claims 1-6 and 9-20 are pending and are examined herein. This is a Final Rejection.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claims 1-3, 9-10, 15, and 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kellner (DE 10 2019 134649, the Office cites to provided machine English translation) in view of Szumera (US Patent No. 6,257,417 to Szumera).
Regarding Claims 1, 15, and 17, Kellner teaches:
a battery housing structure comprising a battery cell in the interior 204 of a tubular housing with an opening at the end (Fig. 1, ¶ 0022)
an end plate 100 mounted at an end of the housing to form the accommodation space holding the battery, the battery operable with electrical devices (Figs., abstract)
the end plate comprising a plate body inserted in the opening of the housing and a stop flange being bent to form a groove, and preventing the plate body from being further inserted into the opening (Fig. 4)
a first sealing element 202 disposed between the end plate and the housing so that the accommodation space is hermetically sealed and a second sealing element 203 located outside the first sealing element and disposed in the groove (Fig. 4, ¶ 0023-0024)
PNG
media_image1.png
474
672
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
846
684
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Kellner does not teach:
the groove being “jointly formed by the stopping flange and the plate body”
Szumera, however, from the same field of invention, regarding a tubular housing with an accommodation space formed with an open end that is closed with an end plate, teaches an end plate with an inserted plate body that jointly forms a groove with a bent stopping flange 20 (Fig. 2).
PNG
media_image3.png
549
598
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Szumera further teaches a sealing element 22 in the groove to form a seal at the interface (column 4). It would have been obvious to modify the end plate of Kellner to have an outer bent flange portion that forms a groove with what can be called a “plate body” as a distinct portion of the end plate, as suggested in Szumera, in order to form a groove for an end flange that hermetically seals the outer ring between the end plate and the tubular body with an o-ring rather than a specific sealant on a side surface.
Regarding Claim 2, Both Kellner and Szumera teach:
a tapered guide portion disposed at ends of thee plate body inside the housing (Figs. 4 and 2, respectively)
Regarding Claim 3, Kellner teaches:
a mounting groove that is created in the plate body, wherein there is no “bent flange” imposed upon the figure, only a groove between the plate body and the side wall of the housing
It would have been obvious to leave such a groove in the modified version of Kellner in view of Szumera to allow the first seal to remain fitted to the side walls, as taught in Kellner.
Regarding Claim 9, Kellner does not teach:
a stopper on the outer surface of the housing
Szumera, however, teaches a stopper 30 abutting clamps arms 26 which are an extension of the stopping flange, and which limit an insertion depth of the plate body into the opening insofar as they set a bounds on the depth value (see e.g., Fig. 1 and column 4). It would have been obvious to provide the flange portion taught in Szumera to ensure a hermetic seal of the end plate with just an o-ring at the interface.
Regarding Claim 10, Szumera renders obvious:
a stopper on the outer surface of the housing
a convex rib 30 that extends along a length of the housing
Regarding Claim 18, Kellner teaches:
providing the housing, end plate, and sealing element
Regarding Claim 19, Kellner teaches:
a battery housing structure comprising a battery cell in the interior 204 of a tubular housing with an opening at the end (Fig. 1, ¶ 0022)
an end plate 100 mounted at an end of the housing to form the accommodation space holding the battery, the battery operable with electrical devices (Figs., abstract)
the end plate comprising a plate body inserted in the opening of the housing with a stop flange (Fig. 4)
a first sealing element 202 disposed between the end plate and the housing so that the accommodation space is hermetically sealed and a second sealing element 203 located outside the first sealing element and disposed in the groove (Fig. 4, ¶ 0023-0024)
wherein the end plate comprises a plate body, the plate body is inserted in the opening, and a tapered guide portion is disposed at an end of the plate body, the guide portion being a tapered bevel (Fig. 4)
Kellner teaches a bevel, rather than a reverse bevel. Reverse bevels were known in the art, however, at insertion ends of an end plate, and were an obvious shape choice. See, e.g., US Patent No. 7,533,699 to Cellemme et al., showing a reverse bevel on an endplate insertion end, the plate body also having a mounting groove for a sealing ring (Fig. 2).
PNG
media_image4.png
748
638
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Where a prior art component has the same function as the instantly claimed component, motivation to alter the shape of the component to any other equally useful shape is obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art absent evidence of new or unexpected results. See MPEP 2144.04 IV. A structure or method step that is obvious to try— such as one that is chosen from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success, has been found to be obvious. See KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007).
Regarding Claim 20, Kellner teaches:
a battery housing structure comprising a battery cell in the interior 204 of a tubular housing with an opening at the end (Fig. 1, ¶ 0022)
an end plate 100 mounted at an end of the housing to form the accommodation space holding the battery, the battery operable with electrical devices (Figs., abstract)
the end plate comprising a plate body inserted in the opening of the housing with a stop flange (Fig. 4)
a first sealing element 202 disposed between the end plate and the housing so that the accommodation space is hermetically sealed and a second sealing element 203 located outside the first sealing element and disposed in the groove (Fig. 4, ¶ 0023-0024)
wherein the end plate comprises a plate body, the plate body is inserted in the opening, and a tapered guide portion is disposed at an end of the plate body, a stopping flange at an end of the plate body
Kellner does not teach:
the groove being “jointly formed by the stopping flange and the plate body”
a stopped disposed on an outer surface of the housing directly abutting the stopping flange to limit an insertion depth of the plate body into the opening
Szumera, however, from the same field of invention, regarding a tubular housing with an accommodation space formed with an open end that is closed with an end plate, teaches an end plate with an inserted plate body that jointly forms a groove with a bent stopping flange 20 (Fig. 2). Szumera further teaches a sealing element 22 in the groove to form a seal at the interface (column 4). It also teaches a stopper 30 abutting clamps arms 26 which are an extension of the stopping flange, and which limit an insertion depth of the plate body into the opening insofar as they set a bounds on the depth value (see e.g., Fig. 1 and column 4). It would have been obvious to modify the end plate of Kellner to have an outer bent flange portion that forms a groove with what can be called a “plate body” as a distinct portion of the end plate, as suggested in Szumera, in order to form a groove for an end flange that hermetically seals the outer ring between the end plate and the tubular body with an o-ring rather than a specific sealant on a side surface.
Claims 4-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over over Kellner (DE 10 2019 134649, the Office cites to provided machine English translation) in view of Szumera (US Patent No. 6,257,417 to Szumera), in further view of Fietz (US Patent No. 7,857,322 to Roland Fietz).
Regarding Claims 4-6, Kellner does not explicitly teach:
a plurality of bulges disposed on a surface of the first sealing element in contact with the mounting groove (claim 4)
a plurality of sealing lips closely abutting an inner wall of the housing (claim 5)
three sealing lips arranged in parallel along a direction perpendicular to a plane of the opening (claim 6)
Fietz, however, from the same field of invention, regarding a sealing ring, teaches a sealing ring with three sealing lips on each side of the ring, such that they abut both surfaces to form a tight seal (Fig. 5, abstract).
PNG
media_image5.png
482
592
media_image5.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to provide such a seal in the groove of Kellner, with the motivation to improve the seal at the opening of the housing. Simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results has been found to be obvious. See KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007).
Claims 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kellner (DE 10 2019 134649, the Office cites to provided machine English translation) in view of Szumera (US Patent No. 6,257,417 to Szumera), in further view of Trigg (US 2024/0396147 to Trigg et al.).
Regarding Claim 11, Kellner teaches:
the end plate further comprising a connecting portion, broadly construed, across the end plate surface and disposed on a side of the stopping flanges provided away from the plate body (Figs. 3-4)
positioning the battery device in a vehicle (¶ 0001, etc.)
Kellner does not explicitly teach:
a plurality of mounting holes created in the connecting portion and configured to be connected to an external structure
It would have been obvious to provide fastening holes for mounting the battery pack to the vehicle, as suggested by Kellner. Trigg, for instance, regarding a battery pack, teaches an end plate with mounting holes (Fig. 5) as a conventional feature in the art for positioning a battery pack on a vehicle frame. Use of a known technique to improve similar devices, methods, or products in the same way, and applying a known technique to a known device, method, or product ready for improvement to yield predictable results has been found to be obvious. See KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007).
Claims 12-13 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kellner (DE 10 2019 134649, the Office cites to provided machine English translation) in view of Szumera (US Patent No. 6,257,417 to Szumera), in view of Trigg (US 2024/0396147 to Trigg et al.).
Regarding Claim 12, Kellner teaches:
a recessed region formed on a side of the plate body away from the battery cell (Fig. 4)
Kellner does not teach:
a sidewall of the recessed region is connected to the housing by a fastener
Trigg, however, from the same field of invention, regarding a tubular battery housing with an end plate, teaches an end plate with recessed features, reinforcing features, and holes for fasteners for mounting the battery pack on an external frame (Fig. 5).
PNG
media_image6.png
510
514
media_image6.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to provide such features on an end plate of a battery pack in order to mount the pack on a vehicle frame through a strengthened end plate with external terminals. Use of a known technique to improve similar devices, methods, or products in the same way, and applying a known technique to a known device, method, or product ready for improvement to yield predictable results has been found to be obvious. See KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007).
Regarding Claim 13, Kellner teaches:
the recessed region bounded by reinforcing ribs, broadly construed as “disposed in the recessed region” within the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim (Fig. 4)
Regarding Claim 16, Kellner does not teach:
the particulars of the battery cell modules, such as a cable containment system assembly, having a fender or holder with cell buses connecting the cells to an external terminal
Trigg, however, from the same field of invention, teaches conventional bus bars with a bus bar holder for containing a circuit board with associated wires, interpreted to read on a “cable containment system assembly” within the broadest reasonable interpretation thereof, which were standard in the art (¶ 0006-0010, 0049-0055, etc.).
PNG
media_image7.png
350
314
media_image7.png
Greyscale
Cable containment assemblies, such as bar bus holders that accommodate circuits for battery management were conventional in the art and would have been obvious to provide in a battery pack like that in Kellner in order to manage cell connections and operations through external terminals.
Claims 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kellner (DE 10 2019 134649, the Office cites to provided machine English translation) in view of Szumera (US Patent No. 6,257,417 to Szumera), in further view of Gentz (WO 2019-158346 to Gentz, the Office to provided machine English translation).
Regarding Claim 14, Kellner does not teach:
a convex rib along a length or width direction of an outer surface of the housing forming a heat dissipation channel
Gentz, however, from the same field of invention, regarding a tubular battery housing, teaches forming convex cooling fins 104 along the outer wall of a housing (Fig. 1).
PNG
media_image8.png
548
608
media_image8.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to provide convex cooling fins along the outer surface of the housing to improve temperature regulation. Use of a known technique to improve similar devices, methods, or products in the same way, and applying a known technique to a known device, method, or product ready for improvement to yield predictable results has been found to be obvious. See KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007).
Response to Arguments
The arguments submitted 2026-07-20 have been considered but do not place the application in condition for allowance. In response to the instant amendments, the rejections have been modified to rely on Szumera et al.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Michael Dignan, whose telephone number is (571) 272-6425. The examiner can normally be reached from Monday to Friday between 10 AM and 6:30 PM. If any attempt to reach the examiner by telephone is unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Tiffany Legette, can be reached at (571)270-7078. Another resource that is available to applicants is the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR). Information regarding the status of an application can be obtained from the (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAX. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, please feel free to contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). Applicants are invited to contact the Office to schedule an in-person interview to discuss and resolve the issues set forth in this Office Action. Although an interview is not required, the Office believes that an interview can be of use to resolve any issues related to a patent application in an efficient and prompt manner.
/MICHAEL L DIGNAN/Examiner, Art Unit 1723
Prosecution Insights